This isn't an "answer without a problem", its just a problem that nobody cares about in singleplayer games. "Yay I got my +9999 sword of face pwn, now I can go 1 hit kill the NPC boss". Whose going to complain about that?

Those were two separate statements.

You're probably just reading your own chat there

Your wit is truly a sharp blade, like a butter knife or a spoon.

Your mindless assumptions are interesting, but as usual, nowhere near valid.

Well, now you have me curious. When was the last time you had to implement networking code or develop something that had separate client side or server side architectures?

When the optional feature has the potential to double your community size.

Double. Right.

In general, optional features are a plus.

And also a point to feature creep. There is a point when you stop adding new things and I think it's pretty clear that at some point you have passed it.

Using this logic we can say that every optional feature is good because there might be person that will like it.

When the optional feature has the potential to double your community size. In general, optional features are a plus.

When it comes to optional features which increase your community size; adding option to watch porns to your game should increase your community size much more than multiplayer mode. Yet nobody does that, even you. May I ask why? Because that's not in the concept! Same goes for multiplayer.

I think part of why TES is successful is because it's NOT multi-player. It succeeds because it's different than, say WoW, because it appeals to everyone who only want to play by themselves. Not everyone wants an MMO experience. I used to be all for MMOs and, like you, thought every game in existence should have some online multi-player feature. But then I started seeing how terrible some game communities can be, and how I can lose a game because someone else is hacking, or raging, or has a slow connection and it made me miss the Sega Genesis days where I didn't have to put up with all that.

Some people are die-hard fans of real-time strategy. That doesn't mean every turn-based strategy game should implement a RT mode. That's basically what you're saying with multi-player - because you had fun with multi-player in some games, it should be in all of them. I don't think Bethesda is lazy. They just realize that multi-player isn't really necessary. Sure, there are people who probably want to play with their friends, but at the same time, they're not going to stop playing Elder Scrolls if it never becomes an MMO.

Double indeed. If anything, multiplayer actually provides far more than double the possible community size. Look at the Steam stats, there are almost 10x as many people in L4D2 as HL2. Of the top 10 most played games on steam, only one of them is single player only, which is Skyrim, and that game is so far from the standard that it is hardly comparable. Even if you extend that to the top 20, the only other singleplayer game is FONV, which falls into the same boat as Skyrim.

Kisioj wrote:

When it comes to optional features which increase your community size; adding option to watch porns to your game should increase your community size much more than multiplayer mode. Yet nobody does that, even you. May I ask why? Because that's not in the concept! Same goes for multiplayer.

There are plenty of games with sexual content in them, the reason they don't have true porn in them is because it would be pointless. Why would you watch it in some game when you can just go on your computer? Not to mention it would prevent the game from ever getting sold. Also, I have indeed made such a game on BYOND, was the most played game before it was forcibly removed from the hub. Porn in a game would be more of an additional feature than an optional one. It isn't offering more of the same gameplay mechanics, but instead something completely unrelated.

EmpirezTeam wrote:

You want MMOs!

I don't want every game to be an MMO, as I already said. Small coop is usually better than an MMO, and is what the multiplayer aspect of MMOs usually end up playing as anyway.

Some people are die-hard fans of real-time strategy. That doesn't mean every turn-based strategy game should implement a RT mode. That's basically what you're saying with multi-player - because you had fun with multi-player in some games, it should be in all of them.

Those are two completely different concepts. I'm not saying a FPS game should have a turn based combat mode. I'm saying that FPS game should have a multiplayer mode that offers the same gameplay concepts in an online environment.

I don't think Bethesda is lazy. They just realize that multi-player isn't really necessary. Sure, there are people who probably want to play with their friends, but at the same time, they're not going to stop playing Elder Scrolls if it never becomes an MMO.

I give much credit to the engine that does all the difficult things for you. Surely you could easily take these skills and apply them to a context that doesn't have bumpers in the gutters.

Double indeed. If anything, multiplayer actually provides far more than double the possible community size. Look at the Steam stats, there are almost 10x as many people in L4D2 as HL2.

Let us flood New Orleans. There are almost TWENTY TIMES as many people in the streets as there are people in their homes. Clearly, we should draw the conclusion that flooding increases the population of New Orleans (and, then, presumably all other cities). I wonder why, then, so few cities are flooded on a regular basis? Truly it is a conundrum.

I give much credit to the engine that does all the difficult things for you. Surely you could easily take these skills and apply them to a context that doesn't have bumpers in the gutters.

I just learn what's needed as I go. Unity's networking is far more complicated than BYOND's, where everything is just handled for you. Attempting to accuse me of not being able to code an intricate networking system with binary isn't even relevant. These are multi-billion dollar companies, they can just hire somebody to specialize in networking if its too hard for their overpaid team of developers to handle themselves.

Let us flood New Orleans. There are almost TWENTY TIMES as many people in the streets as there are people in their homes. Clearly, we should draw the conclusion that flooding increases the population of New Orleans (and, then, presumably all other cities). I wonder why, then, so few cities are flooded on a regular basis? Truly it is a conundrum.

This is such a fail excuse for a metaphor that I'm not even going to give it a proper response. Try again.

Attempting to accuse me of not being able to code an intricate networking system

Fine up to here. Then...

with binary

... my face was all full of, "What?"

These are multi-billion dollar companies, they can just hire somebody to specialize in networking if its too hard for their overpaid team of developers to handle themselves.

I applaud you for raising the goal posts. I never cared about the companies. I was claiming that you don't know enough about the topic to criticize them, and it really seems as thought I was right.

This is such a fail excuse for a metaphor that I'm not even going to give it a proper response. Try again.

It's not a metaphor, it's an analogy. In any case, you clearly don't understand why citing the current number of people playing these games is not necessarily correlative1 with the number of people that own and play these games. I'm going to see if you have the ability to reason why.

1Although, in this case, it is quite easy to see that, in fact, Left 4 Dead 2 has sold less copies than Half-Life 2, meaning it's incredibly likely less people have played Left 4 Dead 2 than Half-Life 2.

I applaud you for raising the goal posts. I never cared about the companies. I was claiming that you don't know enough about the topic to criticize them, and it really seems as thought I was right.

It seems that your troll argument is still irrelevant. Even if I had absolutely no knowledge about what the word network even meant, I surely know that these companies can afford somebody who does.

It's not a metaphor, it's an analogy.

Indeed. Its a fail comparison either way.

In any case, you clearly don't understand why citing the current number of people playing these games is not necessarily correlative with the number of people that own and play these games. I'm going to see if you have the ability to reason why.

Feel free to explain how the people currently playing the game somehow doesn't represent the amount of people playing the game. Steam stats also list a daily peak of players, which is generally about the same as current player comparisons, just as much larger numbers.

Although, in this case, it is quite easy to see that, in fact, Left 4 Dead 2 has sold less copies than Half-Life 2, meaning it's incredibly likely less people have played Left 4 Dead 2 than Half-Life 2.

Where are you getting these numbers? If that is the case, then it just goes to further prove my point. The game sold far less copies, but has far more players. Multiplayer expands and extends the life of your community.

Yes, it is. I do not understand why you would consider mentioning 'in binary' considering no one writes in machine code for any practical purpose, and has not done so in decades. If you're writing for speed, you either use ASM or a good, low-level language.

Even so, I was talking far more specifically about environments that don't hand hold, which can even include high-level languages like Java, Javascript, and Python. If you don't know anything about networking-without-handholding, then you don't know anything about doing it in any language. Apparently you did not understand that.

It seems that your troll argument is still irrelevant.

If you call something a troll, it loses all truth. Just ask (troll) mathematics, (troll) Kierkegaard, (troll) Maxwell, or (troll) Sartre.

Even if I had absolutely no knowledge about what the word network even meant, I surely know that these companies can afford somebody who does.

Knowing something does not make a complex task simpler. It just makes it easier to tackle.

Indeed. Its a fail comparison either way.

It wasn't meant to be spot-on, just point out the flaw in your statement.

Feel free to explain how the people currently playing the game somehow doesn't represent the amount of people playing the game. Steam stats also list a daily peak of players, which is generally about the same as current player comparisons, just as a much larger numbers.

But it doesn't indicate the total people that have played the game. Half-Life 2, a non-multiplayer, has been played by many more people than Left 4 Dead. It's pretty clear in that sense, then, that multiplayer does not expand the number of players.

Which just goes to prove my point further. The game sold far less copies, but has far more players. Multiplayer expands and extends the life of your community.

It has far more players right now. It's almost a certainty that many, many more people have played Half-Life 2 than Left 4 Dead 2 (Half-Life 2 has sold more than Left 4 Dead as a series). Additionally, it may expand it, but it's certainly not a factor in extending it. People are still playing pre-internet games, sometimes with very large communities dedicated to them (e.g. Rogue).

I'd like to point out that I love Skyrim how it is, but I think it would be great if they would incorporate at the most, a LAN sort of multiplayer. I'd love to be able to conquer Skyrim with a friend. People are working on a multiplayer mod, but I am unsure of how that would work when it is done.

Falacy doesn't have opinions, he has facts, His facts are the truth and should you question them.. You will be replied with countless pointless responses that will make it more obvious that you should never try to reason with him for his truth is based on the thoughts that are accumulated from his quick responses.

This is ridiculous, It's a load of people giving perfectly valid reasons why some games should be single-player only, and then Falacy responds with the same response every time but with slightly different words. He then uses quotes from game companies that say they didn't want to include multi-player because it would take away from there production time and reduce their games' quality, Hang on they didn't want to do it because they wanted to make a better game and have a finite amount of resources, that's not a reason for not including it at all.

Simply put Falacy thinks everyone should do it because he says so and the fact that the majority of well made single-player games get better rating, reviews and purchases has no relevance what so ever.

It's a load of people giving perfectly valid reasons why some games should be single-player only

When did this happen?
So far, the only reasons I've heard for singleplayer only are:
- Networking concepts are too complicated
- Multiplayer experiences are terrible
- Horror games aren't scary in multiplayer
None of these are valid reasons that multiplayer should be left out of a game, none of them are even true.